Comments on: Malt Advocate Magazine’s “Top Ten New Whiskies” for 2009

By: John

John — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:52:16 +0000

Mark, I hesitate to confess that I even tried it…but have been impressed with the Grant’s Sherry Wood blend; when you’re down to your last $20, investing in this blend will at least raise your spirits.

By: John Hansell’s top 10 whiskies of 2009 « The Jewish Single Malt Whisky Society

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:14:03 +0000

[...] Here is a list of the Top 10 Whiskies of 2009 as rated by John Hansell and Malt Advocate magazine. [...]

By: TheMandarin

TheMandarin — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:03:43 +0000

But where is the Macallan Lalique?
…..just kidding.

Good list John. I’m hoping to try the Brora 30 sometime in the next few months. Should be a real treat.

By: TheMandarin

TheMandarin — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:42:49 +0000

Discussions about pricing versus quality are not useless, in fact they are quite useful. Why? Because out and out, some whiskys are better deals than other whiskys. Ah, If only there was a perfect 1.0 correlation between price and quality, where I could say…hold up Bowmore legend…look at the price tag, and instantly know it was worse than Johnny Walker Black because JBB costs more!
Because there is not a 1.0 correlation between price and quality, I may ask a friend for a recommendation, that friend may be my buddy down the block, or it may be my friends at Maltadvocate.com. What that means is that I may be having a very useful conversation about pricing versus quality.
If I was looking for a straight-forward premium product, then I could just go for price, because the relationship between price and premium is actually quite high…nearly interchangeable actually…provided that the buyer and seller are bother well informed. How about the correlation between price and the subjective experience of a whisky connoisseur? Not as easy to liquidate!…quite complicated, and in my opinion, worthy of a conversation. You’re right that old, rare or extinct whiskys are going to cost more, but that brings in issues of supply and demand, collector interest, and the marketing of luxury. As you know, that’s not what this list is about. This is about what John has judged as the best tasting whiskys of 2009.

Granted, this discussion of price vs quality is a bit off topic, but in these tough economic times, well, it’s not too surprising.

By: Best in Blog #69: Penderyn Invades the Blogs; Wrapping Up the Malt Advocate Awards | Whisky Party

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:25:48 +0000

[...] final awards: “Industry Leader of the Year” goes to Mark Brown (Buffalo Trace Distillery); The Top Ten New Releases of 2009; Lifetime Achivement – John Ramsay and Robert Hicks; and Distillery of the Year – [...]

By: Oliver Klimek

Oliver Klimek — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:18:21 +0000

WhiskyNotes, don’t get me wrong, I just posed the questions without trying to answer them because I am convinced that this is exactly how many people think about expensive whisky. I think my persional views are not very far apart from yours. I don’t have a problem with the pricing of the Brora, Given the current state of my wallet, I would spend my money rather on five $85 bottles than on the Brora, but if I had the cash, I would not hesitate to buy a $400 bottle, and I am sure I would thoroughly enjoy it.

The answer to those questions is entirely subjective and also depends on available cash. Regarding watches, I would never ever even spend $100 on one because I threw away my last one almost 30 years ago when I was 14. And I have been living happily ever after without one ever since. And If I really had $10000 to spend on luxury items, I would buy a bottle of Black, White or Gold Bowmore, invite a handful of friends who can appreciate whisky and finish off the bottle in one evening. The remaining $4000 I would divide between several high end bottles for my personal enjoyment on a one-dram-per-day basis.

By: David

David — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:54:16 +0000

Hey John, is the Corry now standard release or do I need to run out and buy one ASAP? Just oreded an Ardbeg by Chieftons and need to wait before my wife will let me get a new bottle.

By: Seth Nadel

Seth Nadel — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:03:15 +0000

I agree, WhiskNotes. As a reviewer, do you think these premium whiskies would get the same scores if it was a blind tasting? It must be hard to remain objective when you know the the distillery, availability, price and age. Also, would the consumer be as objective if they didn’t know it got a high score? As consumers, we can easily be influenced by reviews.

By: B.J. Reed

B.J. Reed — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:12:59 +0000

Paying $300 or $400 for a 30 YO high quality whisky is not out of range considering the amount left in the cask and the time value of the investment – Paying $6,000 is a whole different question. Then my view is that even if you have the $$ you are buying it to say you have it or to invest not because you think the whisky is worth the price.

By: Louis

Louis — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:59:39 +0000

As the Eagle Rare 10 is a single cask bottling, there is some variation. I have never tried one that was less than good, but one bottle in particular was spectacular. It totally embarrassed the bottles of Glenlivet 18 and Glenrothes 1991 (15 yo) that were also being poured. I was the only one who noticed, as everybody else stayed with their preferred type of spirit.

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:55:15 +0000

You’re right, Oliver. A three or four year old child can tell you which number is bigger and which smaller, but is the comparison of two good whiskies isn’t such an elementary matter. What does a one point difference between a super complicated 30 year old and a powerful, well crafted young peat monster taste or smell like? It tastes and smells like the dire inadequacy of number or letter grades to the representation and comparison of complex personal experiences.

The Brora is overpriced– I got it for 375. I don’t think I would have have bought it for more than 440, The Corry is not as overpriced, but it would have to come down to less than 50 before I bought it. The value comes down to how much I like a whisky and how interchangeable it is with other easily avaiable products. The price tag is also a big deal because I’m not rich– Someone’s ratings, however, which are just his attempt to make how much he likes something a less equivocal matter than it really is, do not factor in at all. Because whoever that is has a different nose, palate, and brain, as well as a different personal history from me so he experiences things differently from me… and in all fairness, perhaps he experiences them in more numerical terms… I’ve heard that some people can taste numbers and see music…

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:32:54 +0000

Well said. It’s good to see that the high priced bottles get high scores, and it’s not just marketing hype.
Premium prices for premium products.

By: WhiskyNotes

WhiskyNotes — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:24:58 +0000

I find this discussion about whisky pricing vs. quality rather useless and I’m getting annoyed with the fact that it seems to go in that direction every single time a 100+ $ bottle is reviewed.

Does it make sense to spend 10.000 $ on a watch? A 100 $ version is probably just as efficient in telling you the time. But if you have the cash, I can give you tons of reasons to go for an expensive one. That’s just the concept of a premium product. It doesn’t make sense to blaim a premium product for being premium. It’s perfectly normal that old, rare, complex and extinct whiskies have much higher prices.

Everything within limits of course, a Brora 30yo is rather correctly priced if you ask me. The Gold Bowmore not so much.

By: Texas

Texas — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:40:38 +0000

I do love the EWSB, but last weekend I bought the Eagle Rare SB 10 year for about $24, and I must say I like it even better than the EWSB 2000. OTOH I like the EWSB 1999 a bit better than both.

By: Oliver Klimek

Oliver Klimek — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:23:26 +0000

With bottle prices in the four-digit territory, I think the meaning of “value” somehow becomes diffuse, especially in relation to a point rating. At least if you actually buy your whisky in order to drink it. And I am saying this being a “point rater” myself.

With the Corry you can get a 96 point bottle for $85, the Gold Bowmore is more than 70 times as expensive, yet gets the same point score of 96. Does this really mean that buying a bottle of Gold Bowmore for the purpose of drinking the contents is the same as burning money? Are there “good” 96 points and “bad” 96 points?

The Brora 30 for $400 only received a score of 95. You could buy almost 5 bottles of “better” whisky for that money. It tastes different than the Corryvreckan, for sure. But should this experience be worth an additional $315?

This is becoming rather philosophical, and I think everyone has to find their own answers to these questions.